chorleyjeff

Geoff, do you mean Bruce Percy  http://www.brucepercy.co.uk/ only three things holding me back Too old, Unfit and No dosh 

Yes it is Percy. I should proof read before posting.

I am very close to my 8th decade and there is little walking required on the course so no excuses for those two :-))

Unfortunately my dosh is rapidly diminishing so I appreciate your position about that.

Cheers

Jeff

Aww, sad to hear that Jeff. Do bear in mind that film cameras were a lot more robust and less prone to obsolescence, so you could do worse than pick up a second hand good quality camera (the Olympus OM series were satisfyingly small) and keep going. 

 

Or go to the other extreme - get an iPad with a painting app and turn your photos into artwork.

I was very happy with my Bronica MF and Minolta 35mm cameras and Meopta enlarger.

But I decided to get the benefits of digital imaging and invested heavily. Unfortunately I got rid of all my film stuff - for peanuts :-((

I have an IPad, which has worked perfectly from new but it can't do A3 prints! And nice big prints are what I like to do.

It's a pity Apple do not make a high reolution camera!

Cheers

Jeff

I am completely fed up with the expense of photography. I have just paid £132 for a lens repair and today my Sony A 290 has become no more than a doorstop. Photo equipment seems little more than delicate consumer electronics unless you pay well over £1,000. And the cost of ink for my Canon Pro 9000 printer is ridiculous.

I'll concentrate on my painting which at least has reasonable and predictable costs.

Anyhow, I am booked on the above course.

Anybody want to make an offer to take my place on the course?

Cheers

Jeff

Exactly. The OIC technology in my Lumix gives me two or three slower shutter speeds to use compared with not having anti-shake, so it's well handy at certain times. Plus it steadies the image in the EVF which is a boon when composing.

But just been checking web sites re theSteadyShot failure.

A reported problem is that the mechanism ( which is mechanical ) jams off centre so what you see in the viewfinder is misaligned with the actual image. Have now checked and indeed there is misalignment - the actual image is higher and to the right of what the viwfinder sees. Now need to compare how sharp the image is compared with a camera with working SteadyShot.

Having just paid £132 to have my lens repaired I am wholly fed up that I am now faced with more substantial costs.

If I had not booked a photo holiday next March I think I would sell off my camera stuff and get a Lumix FZ 28 or similar and have photos printed by a third party, then concentrate on painting where I can control costs.

Cheers

Jeff

Hmmm, that ain't running correctly.

I have had a look for a firmware update which is often a good way of getting a camera to work again but can't see anything on the net or Sony's site.

A failing internal battery is a very uncommon thing and usually associated with far older cameras and even then if you've the main battery in all setting should hold while it has charge.

 

If you can live without SteadyShot then live with the camera but when you have the funds it could do with a trip to a repair agent - at the very least I would log a question with Sony via your account and see what they say.

Thanks for information.

The internal battery has failed on both this bodyand my A580 in that a date/time reset message comes on screen when the bodies have been switched off for an hour or more so I guess the internal battery doesn't hold charge very well.

I have noticed that when I switch the camera on the SteadyShot indicator shows "on" for half a second or so, which maybe significant.

I asked the question here before digging into the internet in the hope that there was a simple fix that I had missed. I shall now start to dig deeper.

I can live without SteadyShot as I did with film cameras for many years but if the technology is there I would like to use it especially since I can't yet carry my tripod around with my camera.

Cheers

Jeff

Flash problems on my Lumix are caused when I forget I've set Burst Mode on - when I knock it off the flash works again.

 

Do you think another (incompatible) setting is causing the problem?

I shouldn't think so. The instruction book gives instructions about how to switch it off from the menu but the relevant line on the screen is greyed out regardless of settings.

Thanks for reply.

Cheers

Jeff

Are you getting the SteadyShot indicator when you are shooting - looks like a mobile phone signal strength symbol.

 

Other than that all I can suggest is a full re-set - right back to set-up where you have to set the date/time etc.

The symbol is like a flashing wireless signal strength indicator at full strength regardless of shutter speed from 1sec. to 1/500th.

Have done the full reset. The date/ time has to be reset ( or not ) everytime I switch on. This is, I understand, due to a failing secondary battery. The reset didn't work.

Thanks for suggestion.

Cheers

Jeff

one of my dogs knocked my camera with my favorite tamron 70-300mm lens and it is now broken,.. the zoom does not work unless I pull out the barrel myself to zoom.

Has anyone attempted to fix something like this before?

I feel your pain.

Got my Tamron SP 70-300 back from repair yesterday. Cost £132.

The repairer said it had been dropped or knocked. I denied it but my wife reminded me I had dropped it a few months ago - selective amnesia I guess.

Anyhow it now works perfectly and the repairer cleaned and adjusted focus and shutter.

The initial quote was £80+ VAT but the repairer dismantled it and found the dropped damage and asked if it was ok to go ahead and repair for the higher price.

The repair shop is Newton and Ellis in Liverpool. They did a god job on my Sigma 105mm and I have to say they are good folk to deal with - going in their shop is like going back many years in a good way.

Cheers

Jeff

Got my Tamron SP 70-300 back from repair yesterday. Today I have been told I can drive my car again.

So I am keen to get out and about to do some photography.

But not yet able to carry my tripod and camera bag.

So I tried to switch on steady shot from the menu on my A 290 but that section of the menu was greyed out and was not able to switch it on (also the same applies to flash compensation). I had stored the camera without a battery installed and thought maybe the steady shot function would be revived by the nice freshly charged battery. A few hours worth of fresh battery has not done the trick.

From the menu I restored all presets but still no steady shot and still greyed out.

It isn't a desperate situation but steady shot would be useful whil not able to cary the tripod around.

I should mention that changing lenses didn't make steady shot available.

Any ideas anyone about how to go about getting steady shot to work? Please do not say take it to the repair shop because repairing the Tamron has cleaned me out!

Cheers

Jeff

Thanks for thoughtful reply. We want a site to showcase work and with any luck attract new members preferably below retirement age.

I was aware that pop up adverts are a nuisance. My other bother is that sites soon go stale if there is no fresh material and ease of addition and deletion of material is essential as updating should be shared between members.

As I have looked at replies it has become clear that making and maintaining a good clear site needs a big and continuing effort.

Cheers

Jeff

Thanks everyone for info.

BUT

Last week, in my absence ( can't drive for a few weeks ) members decided they are a group of friends who paint and the leading lights said they would leave if the number of members exceeded 20 and they don't want to tout for new members. This would seem to make a website pointless even though only three weeks ago they said they wanted more members and a website to promote the club!

Anyhow I am sorry to have wasted peoples time but thanks for taking the time to post replies.

Cheers

Jeff

This is not actually correct LR has PhotoPro has it's native colour space.

Also when printing from LR you have to assign a colour profile, unless you are letting the printer manage the colour space output and then you have no control over it as the printer will use it's own colour management.

 

By the way there is no printer or monitor that can show the full gamut of colours that the PhotoPro colour space has, and monitors that can show the full gamut of even Adobe RGB cost in the thousands.

 

So what you see is not what you get even when soft proofing, all soft proofing does is show roughtly colours that your printer is capable of or you can use softproofing correctly to show out of gamut colours that will not print correctly so you can adjust them so they are in gamut and will print correctly.

 

Where as printing as srgb pretty well guarantees what you see is what you get if you have a correctly calibrated monitor.

 

Now I am not saying one is better than another but if you are going to go into the world of large colour spaces then be prepared for more work and lots of test prints unless you are letting the printer colour manage it then it will convert it to the lowest common denominator that it can handle (most likely srgb than Adobe rgb unless a expensive printer) what ever the colour space.

 

Off course you should capture in the biggest colour space possible as you can always output at a smaller colour space and still have leeway for future developments in printing and monitors.

thanks for reply.

I was referring to my raw processing done in LR4, and Martin Evening's book on LR4 remarks about raw files having no colour space.

But I defer to your better knowledge and readily acknowledge my confused understanding.

Cheers

Jeff

I think if you're printing for competition or framing, AdobeRGB, but then you'll have to edit for that to, as the monitors tend to show sRGB.

 

But having said that, most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference as the human eye can only see 7,000,000  colours.

 

Adobe RGB is irrelevant for real photography. sRGB gives better (more consistent) results and the same, or brighter, colors. Using Adobe RGB is one of the leading causes of colors not matching between monitor and print. sRGB is the world's default color space. Use it and everything looks great everywhere, all the time.

 

 

Paul.

Hmmm

I must disagree.

I usually print from LR so no actual colour space.

From PS try print preview. You will then see a difference, especially in the reds.

Why restrict colour space to the lowest common denominator of sRGB? After all every little helps.

Anyhow we all have our work practices that we get to do what we want so that's fine.

Of course screen pictures should besRGB.

you need to think about various things when creating a website, especially if going for free hosting

 

1) Are there page limits, bandwidth limits, email address limits or any other limits. if there are check out the upgrade costs, 123 reg sell very cheap domains but a friend bought one for her business and soon discovered that everything she needed or wanted to do required a paid upgrade. Ended up cost her double what it should have. Bandwidth limits are the big one especially for business sites as lots of free hosts disable your website once you reach your limit, looks very bad for business or forces you to buy extra bandwidth at inflated prices

 

2) What is the support like? some hosting companies provide very little support or take forever to respond, no good if your site is down. Other provide rapid responses and good help.

 

3) what adds or links do they force you to have on your site, some places run google ads on your site and you have no control over the content. I have seen photography sites with google ads on for other photographers

 

Also if you are a UK based business try to get hosting on UK based servers as google uses location as part of its search process so US based site may get a lower ranking in the UK

Thanks for thoughtful reply. We want a site to showcase work and with any luck attract new members preferably below retirement age.

I was aware that pop up adverts are a nuisance. My other bother is that sites soon go stale if there is no fresh material and ease of addition and deletion of material is essential as updating should be shared between members.

As I have looked at replies it has become clear that making and maintaining a good clear site needs a big and continuing effort.

Cheers

Jeff

Hi! Jeff,

I wish you a speedy recovery after your surgery, I can sympathise fully currently although my surgery wasnt strictly physical ....

As to pixel count, with my inate numbers problem, I can only guess that 16 is better than 8 where pixels are concerned, I do recall that camera expert member BP banging on about pixels in many past posts.

I do know that my 16 mp PANASONIC GX7 seems to take much better photographs than my 16.2 SONY A55..... Then, my NOKIA 1020 phone camera sensor has a whopping 41 mps, this enables better quality cropping, I do know the file ps on a OC monitor are huge......my recent posts of Apricots and yesterday's Portrait shows what it is capable of.

Im not sure what mp the latest thousand pounds plus Leica has ?

I do know, that World Class photography has been taken by low mp Digital cameras, never mind bog standard film ones.......its been said time and time again..........

" It isnt the camera ...........it is the photographer that counts "

Thanks for reply and recovery wishes.

As a Sony owner I am now a bit worried. But were the lenses of similar quality? I get better results using my Zeiss 16-80 lens compared to my previous 18-55 kit lens.

However I hear only good things about the GX7.

I only got Sony because my A mount lenses from My Minolta film cameras were compatible. Irony now is that I no longer have any of the lenses from my Minolta cameras!

And yes it is the six inches behind the lens that matters - and there lies the problem :-(

Cheers

Jeff

One eyed FUJI

With one 60 mp eye and one 4 mp eye ;-)

I have a Nikon D3200 which is 24Mps and I do feel more confident in getting more detail (that is when I can hold the camera steady lol)[/

Yes I can see more pixels means more detail on the sensor. But if projecting at 1400 x 1000 how does the 32MP get on to the screen?

Cheers

Jeff

Pixel counts on their own - once you're past a minimum figure of about 5 or 6 MP - are largely irrelevant. You have to also consider the sensor they are being used in. Just to give a few examples :

 

1. A 16MP camera fitted with a 1/2.3 sensor has crammed a whole lot of tiny little pixels into a tiny sensor, such that they bleed into one another, and the final effect is often ... not very good at all. (Film equivalent : a 110 negative of Kodachrome 25 - superb film, horrible little tiny film size).

2. A 10MP camera using a Micro 4/3 sensor has made much better use of pixel space and though TECHNICALLY it wouldn't print as large as that 16MP camera, in actual fact, it would simply because each pixel is better quality and you would therefore get better prints. (Film equivalent : a 35mm negative of Agfacolor 100 - not such good film but far bigger film size).

3. A full frame sensor such as found on higher end DSLRs could easily afford to fit 25MP in, and each pixel would be larger and higher quality than either of the preceding cameras. (Film equivalent : medium format (6x6 cm) of professional colour transparency film rated at 25 ISO or even finer, if such a beast existed).

 

So to repeat - it's not the number of pixels, but their size and quality (both of which are dictated by sensor size) that counts.

Thanks for reply. I am aware of the information. Question still is why the increase in pixel numbers. Especially if they are not crammed so much there is less noise interference and given the same size sensor bigger receptors should give more light collecting capacity.

Cheers

Jeff

Pixel counts on their own - once you're past a minimum figure of about 5 or 6 MP - are largely irrelevant. You have to also consider the sensor they are being used in. Just to give a few examples :

 

1. A 16MP camera fitted with a 1/2.3 sensor has crammed a whole lot of tiny little pixels into a tiny sensor, such that they bleed into one another, and the final effect is often ... not very good at all. (Film equivalent : a 110 negative of Kodachrome 25 - superb film, horrible little tiny film size).

2. A 10MP camera using a Micro 4/3 sensor has made much better use of pixel space and though TECHNICALLY it wouldn't print as large as that 16MP camera, in actual fact, it would simply because each pixel is better quality and you would therefore get better prints. (Film equivalent : a 35mm negative of Agfacolor 100 - not such good film but far bigger film size).

3. A full frame sensor such as found on higher end DSLRs could easily afford to fit 25MP in, and each pixel would be larger and higher quality than either of the preceding cameras. (Film equivalent : medium format (6x6 cm) of professional colour transparency film rated at 25 ISO or even finer, if such a beast existed).

 

So to repeat - it's not the number of pixels, but their size and quality (both of which are dictated by sensor size) that counts.

Yes I see the point about the quality of receptors. Low light sensitivity, dynamic range etc. But why use more than 5MP regardless of pixel quality. Wont most of the info. just be thrown away?

I can't see any difference between my former 10MP and current 16MP camera pictures taken in good light on my laptop computer screen.

Cheers

Jeff

Jeff

Slightly tongue in cheek I ask why there has been a megapixel race?

My IPad has a resolution of about 2000 x 1500 pixels and monitors usually fewer and laptop screens lower again. Projectors for camera club comps are, I think, about 1400 x 1000 pixels. So no more than 3MP needed

Few people seem to print pictures and then at no

more than A4 so pixels needed at 240ppi is about 5MP.

It would seem that 6MP is about the maximum that most people could possibly need so why the race to sell 20MP cameras? Should I be suspicious that it is just the market being persuaded to buy what it does not need - rather like 150 MPH motorbikes and cars.

Just musing while pretty much confined to quarters - can't drive or lift camera to eye level following op and doing physio 4 times a day! Oh, and my nice Tamron SP 70-300 lens is still at the repair shop.

Cheers

Jeff

Slightly tongue in cheek I ask why there has been a megapixel race?

My IPad has a resolution of about 2000 x 1500 pixels and monitors usually fewer and laptop screens lower again. Projectors for camera club comps are, I think, about 1400 x 1000 pixels. So no more than 3MP needed

Few people seem to print pictures and then at

more than A4 so pixels needed at 240ppi is about 5MP.

It would seem that 6MP is about the maximum that most people could possibly need so why the race to sell 20MP cameras? Should I be suspicious that it is just the market being persuaded to buy what it does not need - rather like 150 MPH motorbikes and cars.

Just musing while pretty much confined to quarters - can't drive or lift camera to eye level following op and doing physio 4 times a day! Oh, and my nice Tamron SP 700 lens is still at the repair shop.

Cheers

Jeff

Hi Chrissy personally I would only take 1 framed print of each picture you intend to sell.

 

A frame costs you more money, raises your final print price (and maybe out of some buyers price range)  and your choice of frame might not suit every buyers home decor.

 

Supplying photos with a cardboard mount keeps your cost down, makes stock easier to handle, transport & display - and most of all helps keep your final price more reasonable.

 

Cardboard mounts also come in a range of sizes, colours, styles and are easily purchased via the web and with a roll of masking tape you can mount the picture yourself.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=picture+mounts&rlz=1C1KMZB_enGB519GB520&espv=2&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=QKvCU6eUDfLQ7AbX7oDgCw&ved=0CGkQ7Ak&biw=1680&bih=891#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=ipqgsCS0BAsLlM%3A%3BSN_H7MlGWKQf0M%3Bhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.cadremont.co.uk%2Fshop%2Fimages%2FP%2FFittedMount.jpg%3Bhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.cadremont.co.uk%2Fshop%2Fpicture-frame-mounts.html%3B541%3B418

 

 

HTH

Colin

I agree with your comments about cost etc and choosing not to frame. But my experience is that framed photos have more presence and show off pictures to best advantage and thus impress potential purchasers as quality products. So maybe have a few framed pictures to show off but offer prints in mats at low prices as well. Also postcards and calendars can sell quite well.

Cheers

Jeff

As well as photographing things I paint things on canvas and I am a member of an art club and we think a club website would be a good idea. It is a new club and people seem to think we need to be "with it" to show we really are not a bunch of old f....s

I have googled for sites that provide websites and I am confused.

Could anyone advise who is a good provider that us non computer savvy folk could make work ok?

Any advice gratefully received.

Cheers

Jeff

Just received an estimate to fix my most favorite lens, Tamron 18 -270(older version)........ £239 it only cost £300 new.

 

So I will just save the £239 and put it towards the 16-300 Tamron I have been lusting after. One problem...will have to wait until November when a modest pension pot will open up 

 

Never Mind..................

Similar with my Tamron SP 70-300.

My Sony Alpha 580 and 290 now need the date resetting when switched on because the secondary batteries controlling that function have failed.

Seems photo equipment is just another electronic consumable. It is very annoying when compared to how long film camera equipment lasted.

I fear I do not have the state of mind to say "never mind".

Cheers

Jeff

Hi Chorley Jeff,

One eye here.........

If I use my iPad for uploading to TIPF I often need to use the ......IMAGE UPSIZER ........app to do exactly that...

When you open any chosen photograph or graphic in it, you see a slider, this easily adjusts the pic to whatever you want.

For posting here, always use 1024 mp for the longest side......these always post to TIPF OK.

FUJI

Can't find an app of that name.

Just tried to upload by using url but the wrong picture emerged.

I give in.

Cheerio folks

Can't help with the iPad issue but why not simply upload from whichever machine you are using to re-size?

 

Another way would be to use an external hosting site such as Flickr.

Because my PC is not connected to the internet.

And my wife uses her laptop for her ownpurposes.

I would prefer to edit on my IPad in the comfort of my armchair rather than have to go out to the outbuilding where my PC and printer live.

Thanks for the suggestion about using a web hosting service. I use photobucket and see how that will work for this site.

Cheers

Jeff

I am trying to work out how to resize images for my IPad so I can post photos ie less than 1024 pixels on longer side and under 300KB.

So I resized in PS using Save for web within the above constraints. Then exported to my wife's laptop computer so I could load into my IPad using ITunes. Then i ported into my IPad.

The photo was 245KB and 1000 x 1000 pixels at72dpi.

Photo Resize on my IPad shows 245KB

But when I tried to load the file into this site I got a file too big message.

Anyone any ideas please about what I could be doing to cause the error message.

It is very frustrating to have spent time resizing about thirty pictures this morning and faffing about to get them on my IPad only to find they can't be loaded here Grrrrrr

Cheers

Jeff